Conflicting conditions for elevation to Stable status

[SteVwonder]

On page 11 of the governance document there is a paragraph under the “1.2.5 Elevation to Stable status” Section:

At the conclusion of the second meeting where the proposal is up for consideration, another formal vote
of the ASC shall be held (per the above voting rules) to determine final disposition of the proposal.  The
Co-Chairs  shall  subsequently  set  a  GitHub  label  indicating  the  result  as  either  “Stable”  (indicating  that
the  proposed  elements  have  been  elevated  to  that  class)  or  “Pushed  Back”.   Accepted  proposals  can  be
committed to the next minor release version by the Release Manager in accordance with their schedule.

And then at the bottom of that section there is a sentence:

Note  that  a  proposal  requires  a  minimum  of  two  quarterly  meetings  to  be  accepted  and  that  actual
publication of the accepted proposal must be included in the next major release of the standard

I think these two statements conflict. I’m guessing it is just a typo in the first paragraph (minor version should really be major version), since it sounds like the intention was to make the transition to stable depend on a major release.

[SteVwonder]

Response from @rhc54 in an email thread: Ick - a typo indeed! Definitely should have been "major" in both places.